News

By: Aaron Mehta , Valerie Insinna , and Mike Yeo WASHINGTON and MELBOURNE, Australia — Japan has formally expressed interest in joining the F-35 program as a full partner, but the Pentagon plans to shoot down that request, Defense News has learned. Sources say Japan's request to join the partnership creates major political headaches for the Pentagon, with fears it would cause new tensions among the international production base for the joint strike fighter and open the door for other customer nations to demand a greater role in future capability development. In a June 18 letter from Japan's Ministry of Defense to Pentagon acquisition head Ellen Lord, obtained by Defense News, Atsuo Suzuki, director general for the Bureau of Defense Buildup Planning, formally requests information on how Japan could move from being a customer of the F-35 to a full-fledged member of the industrial base consortium. “I believe becoming a partner country in F-35 program is an option,” the letter reads. “I would like to have your thoughts on whether or not Japan has a possibility to be a partner country in the first place. Also, I would like you to provide the Ministry of Defense with detailed information about the responsibilities and rights of a partner country, as well as cost sharing and conditions such as the approval process and the required period.” “We would like to make a final decision whether we could proceed to become a partner country by thoroughly examining the rights and obligations associated with becoming a partner country based on the terms and conditions you would provide,” the letter concludes. Lord, the Pentagon acquisition head, is scheduled to meet with Japanese officials this week, and the question of membership is expected to come up. But Tokyo won't like the answer. Although Lord's office will be responsible for carrying the final message to Japan, the F-35 Joint Program Office told Defense News that the partnership remains limited to the initial wave of F-35 investors. “The F-35 cooperative Partnership closed on 15 July 2002,” stated Brandi Schiff, a spokesperson for the F-35 JPO. The decision was documented in an April 2002 memo by the Pentagon's acquisition executive stating that, “except for those countries with which we are already engaged in Level III System Development and Demonstration partnership negotiation by 15 July 2002, we will not be able to accommodate any additional Level III partners due to our inability to offer equitable government-to-government benefits and U.S. industry's inability to offer equitable 'best value' workshare arrangements,” according to Schiff. The F-35 partners in 2007 reiterated in a separate memo that only the partners who participated in the development phase of the F-35 program would be eligible to remain partners during the production, sustainment and modernization stages. A source familiar with internal discussions says the Pentagon is concerned that letting Japan become a program partner would lead to other nations demanding similar access. Japan's query is hitting the F-35 program at a time of change. Vice Adm. Mat Winter, the head of the JPO, retired this month after only two years on the job, and Turkey's pursuit of a Russian air defense system has resulted in them being booted from the F-35 consortium, with all work being done by its companies to end early next year. So in many ways, Japan asking to be made a full partner now makes sense, said a former senior official in the F-35 program, who agreed to speak on background out of respect for current decision makers. “You now lost a partner in Turkey, so there is a vacant parking space, so to speak. And other than the U.S. services, [Japan] will be the one nation with the most F-35s,” the former official said, noting two changes that have happened in just the last year. “Ultimately, the Department of Defense, in coordination with the State Department, made up the rules," the former official said. "The Department of Defense can change the rules.” Global impact There are two tiers of participation in the F-35 program. The first-tier members are considered “partners” in the program, which comes with direct involvement in the joint program office. That includes having national representatives stationed in the JPO, weighing in on decisions about future capabilities, and deciding what future industrial participation looks like. And that industrial participation is important — building parts of the jet that go into the global supply chain is expected to net the partner nations billions in revenue over the lifetime of the program. The partners are made up of the first nine nations to sign onto the program: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The second tier consists of “customers” for the jet, comprising nations that came later to the program. Those nations command less industrial participation, lack voting power on what future development of the jet looks like, and do not have officials assigned to the JPO. That tier is made up of Israel, South Korea, Belgium and Japan, but could expand in the future with Finland, Singapore and other nations. In December 2018, Japan announced a plan to expand procurement of F-35s from 42 to 147 jets, making it the single largest F-35 operator outside of the United States, as well as one of only three foreign nations to operate the F-35B jump-jet model. But Tokyo appears interested in increasing its teaming with the program, in large part because it wishes to take part in guiding new capabilities development as the plane gets ready for its Block 4 upgrade. “There are various merits in participating in continuous capability development and delivery deliberation process by partner countries. In addition, there is a further need to obtain flight safety information for accountability to the public,” the letter from the Japanese defense ministry reads. “I understand that partner countries are allowed to join [JSF Executive Steering Board], to be involved in capability improvement, to dispatch their personnel to JPO, to participate in parts production and to access further information.” The emphasis on the need to obtain flight safety information is notable, after an F-35A crashed into the ocean in April, resulting in the loss of both the plane and its pilot. Japanese officials have since blamed the crash on spatial distortion for the pilot. However, customer nations receive the same safety information that partners do, albeit slightly delayed due to the need to clear information. The letter also acknowledges that “partner countries share significant costs,” an indication that Japan would be willing to pony up more cash in order to join the inner circle of F-35 members. From a pure program logistics perspective, Japan becoming a partner would not be a problem, and in fact program officials would likely find it easier to deal with the largest foreign buyer of the F-35 as a partner rather than customer overall. The politics, however, quickly get tricky. Should Japan be allowed to join, the former official noted, “you've opened Pandora's box.” The former official specifically said that South Korea, due to its complicated political relationship with Japan, and Israel, which was the first nation to be added as a customer after the partnership option was closed, would try to use Japan's joining the program as a way in, as well. The official also highlighted Belgium, for now the sole NATO ally buying the F-35 as a customer and not a partner, as a nation with a strong case for promotion should Japan be allowed in. The best argument DoD could make would be that the sheer size of Japan's buy deserves special privileges, but that sets a bar that other nations could look to climb and effectively buy their way into a partnership. “This is a very interesting political football that DoD has to wrestle with. This is a bigger political decision than a programmatic one,” the former official noted. “I personally think DoD doesn't want the headache if they say yes.” No other countries have made formal requests to join the program, Schiff confirmed. Requests for comment from Lord's office, as well as the Japanese MoD, were not returned by press time. Benefits for Japan In terms of industrial participation, there are opportunities for Japanese firms to pick up work that has been removed from Turkey, said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group. Major Turkish defense firms have had a hand in building hundreds of parts for the jet. Turkey's expulsion from the program, which includes the United States blocking Turkey's planned procurement of 100 fighters, means that production will at least temporarily move to the United States, with a plan to farm it out to other partners in the future. Turkey's aerostructures work could be picked up by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and to a lesser extent Kawasaki and Subaru, Aboulafia said. But he said he was “baffled” by the idea Japan would want more industrial participation at the same time they have publicly moved away from its domestic final assembly and check out (FACO) facility, which since 2013 has handled final production on Japan's domestic F-35s. The FACO facility, which is operated by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, will continue to carry out production work until FY22 to fulfill the F-35As contracted by Japan between FY15 and FY18. Instead, Aboulafia sees Japan's interest as being driven by a desire for future developments, given the decision to increase the island nation's planned procurement of the jet. “If they are going to base their fighter force on this plane for decades to come, they clearly want a say in how this plane is upgraded,” he said. “It's a sovereignty thing.” And floating in the background is another potential complicating factor for the Pentagon: Japan's continued drive to develop an indigenous fighter. Japan is developing a new fighter type to replace the indigenous Mitsubishi F-2 fighter currently in service, and wants the new design to enter service in the 2030s. It is also looking at development pathways for this project, with a fully indigenous design, collaboration with a foreign partner, or a spinoff from an existing fighter design being considered as possible options. The country is already conducting research and development into a number of relevant areas for fighter design, including stealth technologies, fighter engines and active electronically scanned radars, and had previously built a technology demonstrator, the X-2 Shinshin, and carried out a series of test flights with this aircraft to validate these technologies. Asked if the Japanese could be considering the fighter program in their decision to pursue membership in the F-35, Aboulafia bluntly responded, “How could they not?” Schiff, the JPO spokesperson, said the F-35 remains a critical focal point of the U.S.-Japan alliance. “Any opportunities to strengthen the alliance through interoperability and cooperation will be emphasized. As an FMS customer, Japan participates in F-35 user groups and other bi-lateral forums and engagements," she said. https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2019/07/29/japan-wants-to-be-an-official-f-35-partner-the-pentagon-plans-to-say-no/

For the first time, No. 36 Squadron (36SQN) has worked to get United States Air Force (USAF) C-17A Globemasters back into the air under a new cross-servicing arrangement. Technicians from 36SQN were able to assist the crews of two USAF C-17As on separate tasks in Australia. The work came following both countries agreeing to a C-17A Aircraft Repair and Maintenance Service - Implementing Arrangement (ARMS-IA), which allows RAAF and USAF technicians to work on each other's C-17As. On 4 July , ARMS-IA was enacted to help support a USAF C-17A at RAAF Base Richmond. Warrant Officer (WOFF) Pete Ranson, Warrant Officer Engineering at 36SQN, said the request for assistance came via the Boeing Defence Australia representatives at RAAF Base Amberley. “We supplied a co-pilot Multi-Function Control Panel for the cockpit, fitted it and carried out the associated operational checks to verify the replacement,” WOFF Ranson said. “After that rectification, another unserviceability appeared, and was successfully rectified.” This issue related to a Secondary Flight Control Computer, and saw 36SQN engage fellow RAAF technicians at 37SQN for tooling and consumables. Throughout the repair on the USAF C-17A, RAAF and USAF technicians worked side-by-side. “The issues with the affected aircraft were outside the expertise of the USAF maintenance personnel on that task,” WOFF Ranson said. “The USAF aviation technician trades are more specialised than the RAAF, where we stream to either Aircraft Technician or Avionics Technician.” “We carry a broader experience in a range of tasks, and 36SQN maintenance personnel were able to guide the USAF counterparts in rectifying the jet.” The fix at RAAF Base Richmond came just days after 36SQN technicians assisted another USAF C-17A with a suspected fuel leak fault at Rockhampton. “On that occasion, we sent maintenance personnel to troubleshoot the problem,” WOFF Ranson said. “We found it was a faulty valve and not a fuel leak from the tank, which gave confidence to the USAF crew that they could carry on to an appropriate location to replace the valve.” Group Captain (GPCAPT) Steve Pesce, Officer Commanding No. 86 Wing, said the work of 36SQN technicians had immediately validated the ARMS-IA. “The ARMS-IA recognised the close relationship between RAAF and USAF C-17A communities, and the reality that we operate this aircraft a long way from home,” GPCAPT Pesce said. “Both of these examples witnessed a C-17A getting back on a task much sooner than would have been otherwise possible, which is invaluable support.” “I am very proud of the 36SQN team for the assistance it's rendered to its USAF counterparts.” https://www.jber.jb.mil/News/News-Articles/Article/1917908/royal-australian-air-force-and-us-air-force-technicians-on-the-tools-together/source/GovD/

By: Christina Mackenzie PARIS – France has decided that by 2025 it will invest another €700 million ($780 million), in addition to the €3.6 billion ($4 billion) already earmarked, to boost its space capabilities, strengthening its means of surveillance and acquiring the means to self-defend in space. “If our satellites are threatened, we will blind those of our adversaries. We reserve the right to choose the time and means of the riposte: it could imply using powerful lasers deployed from our satellites or from patroller nano-satellites,” explained Armed Forces Minister Florence Parly on July 25. The announcement comes on the heels of the one made by President Emmanuel Macron on July 13 that a Space Command would be created on Sept. 1 in Toulouse, south-west France. Initially staffed by 220 people, it will be subordinated to the Air Force whose name will change to become the Air and Space Force (Armée de l'Air et de l'Espace). “Eventually, this command will be responsible for all our space operations, under the orders of the chief of staff of the armed forces,” Parly said at the Air Defense and Air Operations Command (CDAOA) on Airbase 942 in Lyon-Mont Verdun. She explained that “today our allies and our military adversaries are militarizing space. [...] We must act. We must be ready.” To this end she announced a new weapons program called “Mastering Space” with two major components: surveillance and active defense. France is one of the few countries to have its own space surveillance system thanks to the Graves and Satam radars and the telescopes deployed by the Ariane Group and the CNRS (the state-funded scientific research center). “The successor of Graves must be able to detect satellites 1,500 kilometers away that are no bigger than a shoe-box,” she declared. Actions would be taken to protect satellites, such as adding surveillance cameras to the Syracuse communications satellites and procuring patroller nano-satellites from 2023, according to the defense minister. Officials stress that this new strategy falls entirely within international legal framworks, which guarantee freedom of exploration and use of space as well as the principle of self-defense. However, France's own National Space Law will have to be adapted within an inter-ministerial framework in order to take account of the specifics of military space. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/07/26/france-plans-to-boost-its-self-defense-posture-in-space/

By Steve Trimble Beyond seven acknowledged projects aimed at developing long-range, maneuvering missiles with a top speed over Mach 5, the U.S. Defense Department is working in classified secrecy on at least two more hypersonic weapon programs, industry officials say. The mystery of the classified projects—including such details as their development or operational status and any gaps each fills in the Pentagon's unfolding hypersonic weapons architecture—remains unsolved. But a new clue embedded in the LinkedIn profile of a senior Defense Department hypersonic weapons expert may point to the answers. Seven U.S. hypersonic projects cover air-, land- and sea-based weapons Pentagon expert's online profile points to existence of two more programs Greg Sullivan, a well-regarded expert in the high-speed flight community, describes himself on the professional social media platform as an on-site supporter of air-breathing hypersonic weapons to the department's research and engineering arm. Sullivan's profile also cites his knowledge of “additional hypersonic programs,” which include a nearly comprehensive list of the Pentagon's acknowledged projects. Intriguingly, his original list also included two additional acronyms representing hypersonic programs: “HACM” and “HCCW.” Shortly after Aviation Week inquired to the Air Force Public Affairs office for details about HACM and HCCW, both acronyms were deleted from the LinkedIn page. The Air Force does not acknowledge the existence of any program named HACM or HCCW, and no reference to either acronym appears in the military's public documents, such as budget materials and press releases. Two sources say they have heard vague references to the existence of a hypersonic program called HACM, but had no details, including what the acronym means. The HCCW program was not known to any sources or analysts contacted by Aviation Week. The expert hypersonic community is an unusually tight-knit group, reflecting the technology's mostly experimental status for decades, until its recent rise as one of the Pentagon's top acquisition priorities. The existence of two new acronyms has prompted several speculative guesses. Richard Hallion, a former Air Force chief historian who specializes in the history of hypersonic technology, noted that the acronym HACM could be interpreted broadly to cover almost any type of hypersonic weapon, including scramjet-powered cruise missiles or air-launched boost-glide systems. “Well, the H is obviously [for] hypersonic,” says Hallion. “The rest suggests a mix of ‘A' for ‘Advanced' or ‘Air-Breathing' or ‘Air-Launched.' ‘C' for ‘Conventional' or ‘Capability' or ‘Concept,' [and] ‘M' for ‘Missile.'” The meaning of the HCCW acronym proves even more elusive. For Justin Bronk, a research fellow specializing in airpower at the Royal United Services Institute, one speculative interpretation conforms to his analytical view of a gap in the U.S. military's weapons arsenal. If the acronym stands for “Hypersonic Counter-Cruise Weapon,” Bronk says, HCCW could be a valuable interceptor specifically tailored against high-speed, air-breathing cruise missiles. Although the exact role and status of HACM and HCCW are unknown, industry officials have repeatedly said that at least two additional classified programs exist beyond the Defense Department's seven acknowledged programs. The public list leaves little room for gaps to be filled by new weapons, as they already span air-, land- and sea-launched options and include two different types of boost-glide systems—winged and biconic—and a scramjet-powered cruise missile. The plethora of planned hypersonic options are intended to serve tactical and strategic goals. On the tactical level, the Pentagon's war planners will gain a new option for striking mobile missile launchers and countering long-range attacks on the Navy's surface fleet by an adversary with hypersonic anti-ship missiles. The future U.S. inventory of hypersonic missiles also is intended to serve as a deterrent option short of a nuclear response, as adversaries such as China and Russia stock their arsenals with a range of new hypersonic weapons. The Air Force alone accounts for two of the acknowledged hypersonic weapon programs: a boost-glide system with a winged glide vehicle called the Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW). Another called the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW) relies on a less-risky biconic glide vehicle. The ARRW, also known as the Lockheed Martin AGM-183A, is based on the Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) program, a risk-reduction effort funded by DARPA. The same winged glide vehicle also is being adapted for ground launch under DARPA's Operational Fires (OpFires) program. Raytheon says it is developing a more advanced winged glider under the TBG program, which could be fielded as a second-generation version of ARRW. HCSW, meanwhile, is the air-launched version of a biconic-shaped glider originally designed by Sandia National Laboratories. The Navy and Army are adapting the same original design for the sea-launched Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) system and the Army's ground-launched Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW). Finally, Raytheon and Lockheed are each designing different scramjet-powered missiles under DARPA's Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) program. Weaponized versions of HAWC are under study by the Air Force and Navy for air and sea launch. One possible gap in the weapons portfolio is the apparent lack of an operational follow-on program for HAWC, even though Air Force officials say the program is slightly ahead of DARPA's TBG program. The TBG demonstrator is intended to reduce risk for the operational ARRW system, but no such operational follow-on exists publicly for HAWC. Tom Bussing, vice president of advanced missile systems for Raytheon, acknowledged two hypersonic programs exist that he cannot speak about. “There are probably six different types of hypersonic programs that we have,” Bussing said in a recent interview. “Some are classified, so I can't speak [about] them because we are not at liberty to announce them.” But he named Raytheon's role in four hypersonic programs: TBG, HAWC, CPS and LRHW. DARPA has announced Raytheon's involvement as one of two weapon designers for TBG and HAWC, but neither the Navy nor the Army has explained Raytheon's role in CPS and LRHW. The Air Force has announced that Lockheed is the weapon system integrator for the HCSW variant, but no such role has been announced for the Army and Navy versions of the common glide vehicle. So far, Bussing can only acknowledge that Sandia remains the designer of the biconic glider for HCSW, CPS and LRHW. “That technology has been transitioned over to the CPS program and also to the Army's Long Range Hypersonic Weapon program,” Bussing said. “So we're involved in both, and we're working directly with Sandia.” The Defense Department has inserted $10.5 billion into a five-year budget plan released in March to develop and field the long list of offensive and defensive hypersonic weapon systems. But a detailed check of the budgets for unclassified programs reveals a significant surplus, which could be used to fund classified projects. The combined budget accounts for ARRW, HCSW, CPS and LRHW amount to $7.7 billion over the next five years. The Missile Defense Agency's $700 million planned investment in counter-hypersonics raises the five-year spending total to $8.36 billion. DARPA does not release a five-year budget, but proposed to spend $222 million in fiscal 2020 on TBG, HAWC and OpFires. That still leaves an unexplained gap of about $2.5 billion in planned spending by the Defense Department on hypersonic weapons over the next five years. https://aviationweek.com/missile-defense/clues-emerge-search-pentagon-s-classified-hypersonic-programs

SYRACUSE, N.Y., July 25, 2019 – Lockheed Martin's Radar Sensor Systems market segment has been awarded a contract from Northrop Grumman worth over $600 million for multi-year production (MYP) of 24 additional APY-9 radars for the U.S. Navy's E-2D aircraft program. It's also known as the Advanced Hawkeye program. The APY-9 radar program is nearing completion of a current five-year production contract in 2020, and this new award calls for another five years of production – with deliveries spanning from 2021 to 2025. The latest radar order will include Lockheed Martin's new Advanced Radar Processor. “We're excited to have the opportunity to continue producing APY-9 radars for the Navy's use on its Advanced Hawkeye aircraft and to continue supporting our customers with performance upgrades on a regular basis,” Ken Kaminski, Airborne & National Surveillance Radar program director, said. The APY-9 radar is an Ultra High Frequency (UHF) surveillance system that provides both mechanical and electronic scanning capabilities designed to “see” smaller targets – and more of them – at a greater range, particularly in coastal regions and over land. “The team has performed extremely well to date in terms of delivering all of our APY-9 systems on or ahead of schedule,” Kaminski said. Production work is performed at Lockheed Martin sites in Syracuse and Owego, New York, and Clearwater, Florida. https://www.epicos.com/article/449332/lockheed-martin-receives-award-northrop-grumman-produce-more-apy-9-radars-united

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (July 23, 2019) – Collins Aerospace Systems, a unit of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX), has received its sixth order from the U.S. Army to provide PRC-162 software-defined ground radios for the Handheld, Manpack and Small Form Factor (HMS) program. This sixth order was issued under a multiple award contract that the Army awarded to Rockwell Collins and two other companies in 2016. The contract, which has a $12.7 billion maximum firm-fixed-price with an estimated completion date of March 2026, moves the Army another step closer toward modernizing communications on the battlefield. The PRC-162 is a two-channel ground radio, both man-portable and vehicle-mountable, that will enable the Army to tap into next-generation communications capabilities such as the Department of Defense's new Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) while maintaining interoperability with legacy waveforms. An open-architecture design also allows for software-upgradeable capabilities in the future. “Success in today's multi-domain battlespace depends heavily on secure and reliable communications,” said Phil Jasper, president, Mission Systems for Collins Aerospace. “We've applied decades of proven experience in airborne communications to provide the Army with a next-generation ground radio that will give troops a heightened level of situational awareness and a tactical advantage.” The PRC-162 is a part of Collins Aerospace's TruNet™ networked communications family of products, which includes ground and airborne radios, advanced networking waveforms, applications, and support and services that enable ground and airborne elements to exchange critical data, images, voice and video in real time. https://www.epicos.com/article/449255/collins-aerospace-gets-sixth-order-us-army-production-next-generation-manpack-radios

By DAVID PUGLIESE Viking Air Limited of Victoria, BC has announced its plans to hold a world demonstration tour for its Guardian 400 aircraft, the special missions variant of the Viking Series 400 Twin Otter. The world tour will include detailed briefings and demonstration flights in Europe, Africa, Middle East, India, South East Asia, Oceania, and North America, according to Esprit de Corps magazine. The company unveiled the special mission variant last month at the 2019 Paris International Airshow. Here are more details of what I wrote for Esprit de Corps: For the past six months, a production Series 400 Twin Otter has been undergoing modifications to transform into Viking's Guardian 400 demonstrator aircraft for the proposed world tour, the firm noted. It will feature a left-hand SCAR pod with Hensoldt Argos EO/IR imaging turret, multi-spectral HDTV camera, mega- pixel HD Thermal imager, laser range finder, multi-mode auto tracker, and Remote Image Bus (RIB) video feed for display on the cockpit MFD or crew workstation. The demonstrator will also feature a right-hand SCAR pod with Leonardo Osprey Radar System and Sentient Vidar Camera system. In addition to its mission sensor package, the Guardian 400 prototype will be equipped with an Airborne Technologies' tactical workstation with high-definition touchscreen monitors, data/voice/video recorder, Mission Management Unit (MMU), mission radio communications, intuitive hand controller for MCU & SLR camera targeting, CarteNav AIMS mission system software, Kestrel MTI targeting software, and IKHANA ergonomic mission seat for optimized crew comfort. The prototype will also be equipped with Viking conformal bubble windows, left and right wing-mounted hard points by IKHANA, Thunder Bay Aviation stretcher racks, and an aft lavatory for crew comfort. The tour is expected to start in September. It will end in May 2020 at CANSEC 2020 to be held in Ottawa. Nexter has been selected by the Canadian government to supply the Canadian Army with 88 multi-purpose robots. The deal includes the delivery of 79 NERVA-LG and nine NERVA-XX robots. It is worth $6 million. The medium-sized robot can be controlled from any standard PC, tablet or smartphone, according to the company. Nexter Systems is the prime contractor and will work with Nexter Robotics and ECA Robotics. Deltic Group of Oakville, Ontario will handle in-service support. Leonardo announced that it has signed a contract with QinetiQ to provide a number of PicoSAR Active Electronically Scanned Array radars for the Canadian military's new drones. The firm noted that the PicoSAR radar is ideally suited for installation aboard the Canadian Forces new system, which is based on the lightweight UMS Skeldar V-200 Unmanned Aerial System. The radar will provide all-weather ground mapping and surveillance capability for missions. Seaspan Shipyards has awarded BCS Automation Ltd. a contract for work on the Canadian government's new Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel (OOSV). BCS is the most recent supplier to partner with Seaspan in its work on the OOSV program. BCS is a family owned Canadian small business located in Belleville, Ontario, Seaspan pointed out. The firm is supplying a state of the art ship control and monitoring system for the OOSV. The system is designed to provide ship personnel with all the basic alarms and status information they require in order to maintain the safe and efficient operation of the machinery, auxiliary systems and other relevant equipment. The system features built-in self-diagnostics, an intuitive, user-friendly interface and a fail-safe redundant network to enhance safety and reliability. BCS has previous experience working on NSS projects having been subcontracted by Hawboldt Industries to design and build the winch drive system for the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels (OFSV). Two NATO member nations have opted to purchase Rheinmetall's ROSY rapid smoke/obscurant system for protecting their vehicle families. This versatile modular system thus continues to expand its presence in the global force protection market. The two orders are worth several million euros. Delivery of 126 systems to Spanish defence contractor URO Vehículos Especiales S.A. (UROVESA) has already begun. UROVESA will be installing these systems in 126 out of 139 VAMTAC protected patrol vehicles purchased by the Portuguese armed forces in July 2018, according to Rheinmetall. Delivery of the systems will be complete in March 2020. Pre-series delivery in response to another order begins in May 2019, this time from Belgium. Here, Rheinmetall is acting as subcontractor for the British company Jankel, which is supplying the Belgian Army with the Light Troop Transport Vehicle, or LTTV. All 199 of the vehicles are being prepared for integration of the system, in addition to the supply of control units and launchers for 167 vehicles. Series production commences in February 2020 and will be complete the same year. These two orders mean that ROSY will soon be in service in no fewer than eleven countries. ROSY provides protection from surprise attacks by creating a wall of smoke/obscurant that renders vehicles invisible to the enemy. Unlike conventional smoke/obscurant systems, it not only produces an instantaneous, extensive, multispectral interruption in the line of sight, but also generates a dynamic smoke screen that provides moving assets with long-lasting protection. Ocean Industries Inc. will build four tugs for the Royal Canadian Navy. The firm from Isle‑aux-Coudres, Quebec, was awarded the contract for $102 million under the National Shipbuilding Strategy. The new tugs will provide towing, firefighting and other critical support services to the Royal Canadian Navy. They will replace the navy's five civilian-crewed Glen-class large tugs and two Fire-class rescue boats. Two of the tugs will go to Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt in British Columbia. The other two will be delivered to CFB Halifax in Nova Scotia. The first two tugs are scheduled to be delivered in 2021. The last two tugs will be delivered in 2023. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/viking-to-put-special-missions-aircraft-on-tour-updates-on-defence-industry-developments

Par Léo Barnier Le groupe Dassault Aviation vient de passer une étape importante dans son processus de transformation numérique, en coopération avec Dassault Systèmes. L'avionneur français vient d'achever au mois de juillet le déploiement de la plateforme 3DExperience, développée par sa société « cousine », pour l'ensemble de ses programmes civils et militaires. C'est notamment le cas pour le futur Falcon qui doit être lancé prochainement. Toutes les équipes de Dassault Aviation vont ainsi évouler sous un même environnement numérique. Il s'agit ainsi de créer une continuité qui s'appliquera depuis la conception des nouveaux programmes jusqu'aux services de soutien après-vente. Chacun pourra ainsi travailler sur une maquette numérique unique, qui intègre les demandes spécifiques de chacun, avec des outils compatibles entre eux. Cela doit permettre par exemple au bureau d'études de prendre plus largement en compte les contraintes de l'ensemble du cycle de vie d'un produit ou d'un programme (production opérations, maintenance, rétrofit...) dès les premières esquisses, afin d'optimiser celui-ci dans la durée. A la clef, des gains de temps et de coûts pour le cycle de développement d'un avion - le nouveau Falcon notamment - comme pour la suite de sa vie opérationnelle. Comme l'explique David Ziegler, vice-président Industrie aéronautique et défense de Dassault Systèmes : « La plateforme 3DExperience représente une approche holistique de l'innovation. Elle permet à Dassault Aviation d'accéder à des technologies et à des capacités intégrées et de relier tous les points, du concept aux opérations... » Les différents services du constructeur disposeront d'outils entièrement intégrés dans cette plateforme unique, mais adaptés à leurs besoins spécifiques. Dassault Systèmes mentionne ainsi six solutions industrielles choisies par Dassault Aviation : Winning Concept, Program Excellence, Co-Design to Target, Ready for Rate, Build to Operate et Keep Them Operating. Dassault Aviation entend aussi déployer cette continuité vers sa chaîne d'approvisionnement avec trente sociétés identifiées, comme l'explique Jean Sass, directeur général Systèmes d'information de Dassault Aviation : « Tous nos partenaires industriels travailleront en collaboration avec leurs clients sur une seule et même plateforme numérique. À terme, nous serons en mesure de proposer à nos clients de nouvelles expériences de vol à la pointe de l'innovation. » Cette démarche de transformation numérique à l'aide de 3DExpérience a été entamée l'an dernier, en mai exactement. Dassault Aviation et Dassault Systèmes avaient alors signé un contrat pluriannuel pour remplacer l'ensemble des solutions de gestion du cycle de vie des produits (PLM) de l'avionneur. https://www.journal-aviation.com/actualites/42877-dassault-aviation-acheve-le-deploiement-de-3dexperience

By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — Boeing has announced its withdrawal from the $85 billion Ground Based Strategic Deterrent competition, potentially leaving Northrop Grumman as the only contender vying to replace the Air Force's Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles. “After numerous attempts to resolve concerns within the procurement process, Boeing has informed the Air Force that it will not bid Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) under the current acquisition approach,” reads a Boeing statement. “We've evaluated these issues extensively, and determined that the current acquisition approach does not provide a level playing field for fair competition.” Boeing Defense CEO Leanne Caret detailed the company's issues in a July 23 letter to Air Force acquisition executive Will Roper, which was obtained by Defense News and other outlets. “Throughout the procurement process, Boeing has been transparent with the Air Force about its concerns with the competition,” she wrote. “The final RFP released on July 16 made only modest changes to the draft RFPs that had been previously released. As relevant to the concerns Boeing had raised, the final RFP extended the proposal submission deadline by 60 days, from 90 days after the RFP's issuance to 150 days, and allowed offerors to submit ‘an alternative proposal in addition to their principal proposal,' that could include ‘a single, combined proposal' from both competitors." But Caret said that those changes did not address Boeing's primary concern: that Northrop Grumman would have an unfair advantage in the competition due to its recent acquisition of solid rocket motor manufacturer Orbital ATK, now known as Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems. NGIS is one of two U.S. manufacturers of solid rocket motors, alongside Aerojet Rocketdyne, but both Boeing and Northrop had chosen Orbital as its supplier for GBSD prior to the merger. According to Caret, Northrop only recently — as of July 3 — signed off on an agreement that would firewall Boeing's proprietary information from Northrop's own GBSD team as Boeing negotiates with NGIS for solid rocket motors. Even though an agreement has now been reached, Caret contends that Boeing does not have enough time to negotiate a competitive price for the motors. Caret said the current acquisition approach gives Northrop “inherently unfair cost, resource and integration advantages related to SRMs,” adding: “As I said in my July 8 letter, we lack confidence in the fairness of any procurement that does not correct this basic imbalance between competitors.” Even the Air Force's accommodation that would allow Northrop and Boeing to submit a joint bid “is not a workable solution to these issues,” she said. “Because the final RFP does not address Northrop's inherent advantage as a result of its control of SRMs, Northrop retains the ability to compete on unequal terms against either a Boeing or a joint ‘alternative' proposal — and as a result, would not be incentivized to devote the significant resources required to develop such a proposal,” Caret said. Additionally, Caret said it is “not realistic” to expect that Boeing and Northrop could develop a competitive joint bid in the five months before proposals are due, given that both companies have been working on their separate proposals for more than two years. An Air Force spokeswoman declined to comment on the news, as the competition is currently in source selection. Inside Defense broke the news of Boeing's departure from the competition. Boeing's decision comes a week after the Air Force released its final request for proposals on July 16. A contract for the engineering, manufacturing and development phase is expected to be awarded by the end of 2020. Lockheed Martin had previously competed for the contract, but was ousted in August 2017, when the service awarded technology maturation and risk reduction contacts to Boeing and Northrop. It's unclear how Boeing's departure will affect the ultimate price of the GBSD program. In April, Gen. Timothy Ray, head of Air Force Global Strike Command, said he was counting on competition between Northrop and Boeing to help offset a near-term bump in cost expected as the Air Force makes investments in current infrastructure that will be reused for the GBSD system. Ultimately, that competition would help drive “billions” of dollars in savings over the lifespan of he weapon, he said. “Between the acquisition and the deal that we have from a competitive environment, from our ability to drive sustainment, the value proposition that I'm looking at is a two-thirds reduction in the number of times we have to go and open the site. There's a two-thirds reduction in the number of times we have to go and put convoys on the road.” It would be unusual for the Air Force to move forward with this program with only one competitor, Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, noted in an email. “One option would be for the Air Force to re-write the RFP to address some of Boeing's concerns, which could delay the program,” he wrote. “The RFP had been seen by some analysts as favoring Northrop Grumman because the initial portion was cost-plus, but Boeing's concerns suggest it's worried about a strategic bid by Northrop Grumman.” During an earnings call on Wednesday, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg referred to the GBSD program a single time — to say that the company would leverage its development work on GBSD for future programs such as NASA Commercial Crew effort and next-generation space launch. https://www.defensenews.com/space/2019/07/25/boeing-drops-from-next-generation-icbm-competition/